Our Climate War: FRONTLINE's "Climate of Doubt"

We're in the midst of an uncivil "Climate War" that pits Climate of Fear vs. Climate of Doubt.

Last night I watched a program called "Climate of Doubt," FRONTLINE's hour-long take on the influences and influencers who have reshaped the climate change debate over the past five years.

It was decidedly one-sided, unfortunately, and painted the skeptics and questioners with the same brush as the tobacco lobby and other malcontents.

Some of the tactics they used may have been learned from smoke and mirror campaigns, but it doesn't make their questioning any less valid. (More on that later.)

I'm often asked whether I am a climate skeptic. After all, my blog is The Green Skeptic. My answer is always the same: No, I am not a climate skeptic. (I consider myself a moderate, (Teddy) Roosevelt Republican, those statements combined effectively put me out of the running for any political office.)

I believe the climate is changing, I've seen it with my own two eyes in places as far afield as Alaska, Indonesia, and even the northeast where I live.

But I also believe that skepticism is a hallmark of human nature and it should be applied in liberal (pardon the usage) doses to every human endeavor, whether business, environmental or intellectual.

Skepticism is also a healthy part of the scientific method as hypotheses are formulated, tested, and modified.

1.) The climate is changing, but the true impacts are unknown, perhaps even unknowable; 2.) Some of that change is caused by man, but not all; 3.) We should focus on the cheapest ways to mitigate climate change while simultaneously insuring against the most likely potential changes that could have big impacts on our health and safety (changes in disease vectors, sea level rise near our coastal cities, impacts on food production); and 4.) There is huge potential investment opportunity in affordable solutions that may actually encourage prosperity not prevent it.

Now, back to my earlier comment about questioning.

The folks who are questioning the consensus of opinion or the validity of the science are neither necessarily wrong nor right. They may be looking at the data in ways that back up their arguments as much as anyone else who wants to prove a point. They may also be trying to deliberately confuse people about the issue, as the FRONTLINE program suggests, to create just such a climate of doubt.

Of course, as journalist John Hockenberry asked one of his interviewees last night, "What if you're wrong?"

The question could be asked about either side. Frankly, we won't know who is wrong or right until it's too late.

What really troubles me about the FRONTLINE program last night is that we've lost all foundation for rational, reasonable debate in this country. We have become a nation of blamers and attackers. Anything we don't agree with is shouted down rather than reasonably argued against. It happens on both sides of the issue and good people are getting hurt in the process.

There is a difference between passion and zeal, and we've lost sight of that difference.

We need to get back to rational, reasonable dialogue and a healthy skepticism and away from attack ads, smear campaigns, and trying to prove who is right.

We need to meet in the middle and develop cost-effective solutions to mitigate the impacts of even the most modest scenarios and, perhaps we'll end up promoting prosperity while insuring we're around to enjoy it.

We need to take a chill pill and create a climate of collaboration and put an end to this climate war.

Scott Edward Andersonis currently global marketing director for cleantech at Ernst & Young. He is the founder of the popular blog, The Green Skeptic, and the VerdeStrategy consultancy. He has held management positions with Ashoka and The Nature Conservancy and is co-founder of the Cleantech Alliance Mid-Atlantic. An award-winning poet, Scott was a John Sawhill Conservation Leadership Fellow, ...

1.) The climate is changing, but the true impacts are unknown, perhaps even unknowable;2.) Some of that change is caused by man, but not all;3.) We should focus on the cheapest ways to mitigate climate change while simultaneously insuring against the most likely potential changes that could have big impacts on our health and safety (changes in disease vectors, sea level rise near our coastal cities, impacts on food production); and4.) There is huge potential investment opportunity in affordable solutions that may actually encourage prosperity not prevent it.

Regarding item 3 and 4, the least cost way to reduce energy consumption is EE. The more people get on that page, the quicker it will happen. It would reduce energy bills and the cost of goods and services, increase living standards, etc.

The argument by RE promoters that we should both is not feasable, as there is not enough money/resources to do both.

The restructuring for EE would be so huge, it would give work for tens of millions of workers for decades just in the US and it would finally wipe out the trade deficit, because the US would be sooo much more competitive.

Here are some cost estimats, if the US were to follow Germany's RE build-outs:

Remember that does not get Germany to its energy and CO2 emission goals by 2050, which would be about another 1.7 trillion euros, for a total of $4.5 trillion by 2050.

If the US were to follow Germany's course, the cost would be about ($14.5 trillion, US GDP)/($3.5 trillion, German GDP) x $2.26 trillion = $9.36 trillion, plus about another $9.36 trillion for 2050 emission goals, for a total of about $18.7 trillion by 2050.

The US cost likely would be even greater as it is more spread-out than Germany and more of its aging electrical systems would need to be upgraded and replaced.

It is 100% sure, the US will NOT follow on that course anytime soon, if ever, and almost all other nations will not either.

A much more economically-viable and environmentally-beneficial measure to reduce CO2 would be increased energy efficiency. A 60% reduction in Btu/$ of GDP is entirely possible with existing technologies. Such a reduction would merely place the US on par with most European nations.

It would be much wiser, and more economical, to shift subsidies away from expensive renewables, that produce just a little of expensive, variable, intermittent energy, towards increased EE. Those renewables would not be needed, if we use those funds for increased EE.

EE is the low-hanging fruit, has not scratched the surface, is by far the best approach, because it provides the quickest and biggest “bang for the buck”, AND it is invisible, AND it does not make noise, AND it does not destroy pristine ridge lines/upset mountain water runoffs, AND it would reduce CO2, NOx, SOx and particulates more effectively than renewables, AND it would not require any distribution network buildouts, AND it would slow electric rate increases, AND it would slow fuel cost increases, AND it would slow depletion of fuel resources, AND it would create 3 times the jobs and reduce 3-5 times the Btus and CO2 per invested dollar than renewables, AND all the technologies are fully developed, AND it would end the subsidizing of renewables tax-shelters mostly for the top 1% at the expense of the other 99%, AND it would be more democratic/equitable, AND it would do all this without public resistance and controversy.

I think this quote can be said for many programs that try to address energy and / or climate:

"What really troubles me about the FRONTLINE program last night is that we've lost all foundation for rational, reasonable debate in this country. We have become a nation of blamers and attackers. Anything we don't agree with is shouted down rather than reasonably argued against. It happens on both sides of the issue and good people are getting hurt in the process."

I've commented on this a great deal, and my position continues to evolve. The part of me that wants to be 'cool and detached' says that this is a natural process that will take place as various competing contexts and frameworks for how to even understand these issues play out.

The advocacy part of me says that there has to be a very, very strong push to try to keep expanding the realm of perception here. I don't think humans 'generally' are very good at un-reduced concepts, or over-lapping, inherently multidisciplinary issues. Superstitions and other kinds of abstract explanations creep in a lot in such cases. What's more, and in agreement with you, the nature of 'discussing serious issues" in the US is laughable quite often, and perhaps even more often particularly ineffective. There are a lot of people and forces to blame for this divisiveness.

The one agreement that can be made is that there needs to be a forum for serious dialogue, and I suppose in a small way TheEnergyCollective is actually trying to afford that here.

From an analysts perspective, it is difficult to choose the right amount of cynicism; believing that dominant forces and base comprehensions will win out - knee-jerk reactions, vs the more complicated and broad 'possibilities'.

I suppose my latest thought about this is that there is really very little 'free market competition' about ideas like this; it's generally a reduction of two or three forces/sides at play, and you have to have an allegiance to one side and see it as the truth.

It seems to take a very special situation to create 'open' discussion, where it's not treason if you're wrong, or have dueling propaganda machines cluttering things. I think the unfortunate situation of the person who really cares about energy or climate is that, if you really want something significant and meaningful to happen, you are going to have to, as a matter of course, put effort (tedious and often unproductive effort), into dealing with what the block quote is getting at.

To me, that's what separates the troopers from the dilettantes or people who just want to make a buck off an idea - we have to tend the garden of discourse and discussion itself. While I used to be more reclusive in saying such things, I guess I'm just realizing it's a matter of course now.

Jesse, thanks so much your sharing your thoughts and very erudite commentary. I especially like " we have to tend the garden of discourse and discussion itself." I'll look forward to further dialogue and will seek out your other writings.

Questioning is not wrong, what is wrong is the inordinate influence of the naysayers given the overwhelming scientific evidence humanocentric warming is occuring. Reasonable arguements cannot be made against those pocketing billions who know that if things do go wrong they won't be held accountable and who will have the money to run away from the consequences of their actions. You want reasonable, have all players on a time levelled playing field. Oil, coal etc have had a century of support, time to stand on it's own merit or fail, pay for the hidden costs and stop the tax breaks! Give new tech's the same support oil and coal has already had then cut them off and let them stand or fall too. When tax breaks and kickbacks are threatened for oil and gas what happens? The money machine kicks in and the opposition is bought out. You're "reasonableness" is but one more set of smoke and mirrors in the campaign of disinformation creating the "climate of doubt".

Mk1313, I don't disagree with your assertions or your opinion about subsidies. I argue that subsidies are no longer necessary for fossil fuels or alternatives. R&D money is still needed, but the majority of technologies available today are good to go, assuming a level playing field.

I guess where we differ is in the question of whether reasonableness is disinformation or naivete.

This is true, asd, but I've been participating for a while and I'd say they seem to be genuine in trying to implement an open and accurate dialog. They tend to look too positively on natural gas and fracking for my liking, but that's my part to accommodate.

Just saw this in the current Economist, a review of Dieter Hall's book, "The Carbon Crunch: How We're Getting Climate Change Wrong--and How to Fix It," which looks right up my alley. Will order a review copy and have a look: http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21564815-climate-change-needs-better-regulation-not-more-political-will